quote:

---

jesus and paul both refer to adam by name in the new testament, does that give any credit to the literal side?

---

Jesus and Paul's credability was tarnished by the Jewish authorities. But if you still want to listen to them you can.



While you are thinking about your question, consider also the very intentional message given by the geneologies of Adam's descendants. Methusala (sp?) seems to have died very much near the time of the flood. God's promises to him and other's who were near to God's heart seems to have been the leven that saved the world 'till then.

I HAVE to vote for the reality and the actuality of the fall.

Inbetween I'll accept some fudging. Like I'm definitely not (never) a "young earther."

But the real affect of sin (death) is real enough for ME to believe in real sin and real death. And I believe in the real longevity of Methusala. (the spelling is getting worse. I'll stop.)

quote:

---

mephi: just curious, why and how do you think jesus (or paul) could have gotten it wrong?

if adam was not a literal being, what does he symbolize? is he simply a pattern of what is to come? does he symbolize a cosmic event of some type?

---

Just noting how FEW people are else is answering this question. Wonder what the problem is? Oh, well...


Just being honest, I'm finding it hard to believe the literal nature of Adam and Eve (and I think OTHERS do to who ain't talkin') because of the 1) exegetical considerations and 2) the pretty undisputable evidence about the evolution of our planet. Even granting progressive creationism, day-age, or gap-theory (which, again, I do NOT believe Paul held to), it just doesn't seem to hold up well, IMO, to the Creation account. They all seem like last minute attempts to reconcile Scripture with modern scientific findings. But remember, this is just MY opinion.

Don't get me wrong. I think that both Paul and Jesus really BELIEVED that Adam and Eve were literally beings. That much definitely seems clear in how Paul talks about Adam in contrast to Christ in his writings. But I also think that they both believed in a literal 6-day creation, too. And I think that they may have been wrong in both cases. You can't convince me that Paul (or Jesus of Nazareth for that matter) REALLY held to some type of day-age theory or progressive creationism. Heck, naw!

I think that Jesus and Paul were theologizing from what they really believed to be true. Just like Paul refers DIRECTLY to the ORDER of the creation of Adam and Eve to deal with male/female relations (1 Tim 2:11-14), Jesus uses the creation of male and female FROM THE BEGINNING of Creation (Mark 10:6) to talk about marriage. They were being authentic to the Jewish beliefs at the time.

Really quick, let me deal with the Jesus thing. Because many people think that because it was Jesus that he would have KNOWN about Creation. And that is possible. But here's the thing. If Jesus really DID know that progressive creationism (or something like that) were true, then WHY would he "stick to the script" of the more common belief of the time? Wouldn't this be some type of deceit, in a way? And think of something else. If Jesus really WAS incarnated as a Jewish man of that time period, who grew in stature and knowledge (Luke 2:52), why is it so hard to believe that he was REALLY human in this regard? He went by the theological understandings of his cultural milieu...and there's nothing wrong with that. This would seem to affirm the HUMANITY of Christ, wouldn't it? So I don't see anything wrong with thinking it (as Robert Price would say) "theologically naive" to think that the INCARNATED God wouldn't be FULLY within his setting of incarnation.

Now about the implications. They seem pretty clear. Some people may then ask:

If Jesus and Paul could have been WRONG on some things historically, then what about things that they asserted THEOLOGICALLY? Bump that. What if their takes on SCRIPTURE ITSELF were slightly off? Maybe they could have been wrong on that stuff too!

1. Some people here, I think, would say that Scripture is a mixture of divine leading and human fallibility all under the "inspiration" of the Spirit. (Isn't that right, y'all? Where IS everyone ANYWAY????)

2. It is possible to affirm the infallibility of Scripture without a more modernistic view of it's inerrancy.

Now, I'm not gonna blow smoke here. There's lots of questions. What may this mean about the concept of sin coming into the world through ADAM? If there is no literal Adam, what does this MEAN? How is Jesus the Second Adam if there really was no FIRST Adam. If there is no Adam, how meaningful ARE the geneaologies? (Ask Bishop Ussher. hehe ) Yep. Crucial questions. But in the end, I think it comes down to this: do you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus? If you have reason to, then certain things follow...and they MAY not be so related to the actual existence of the Adamic couple.

Good questions. Let's see if some OTHER people want to say something! Surely, we have many theologically inclined people here who would LIKE to say something. Even if it's just to dispute what I've said. Can't wait to see it all. Always open for correction.

Oh, and a note to any hardcore "guardians of truth" who want to condemn without positive correction. PLEASE make sure to get my name right for yer black-ball list. It's in my profile. Smooches!

Holla back,
aka Mr. Meph (the "couldn't-give-a-rip") Man

Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/25/2002 12:25:49 PM

quote:

---

It is possible to affirm the infallibility of Scripture without a more modernistic view of it's inerrancy.

---

quote:

---

thanks for the comments everyone.

however nothing has really been said about adam and eve (modes got there a little bit). to me this question doesn't have to involve evolution. i was thinking more along the lines of some cosmic event happening in the primordial past that was given to us in terms that we could understand. anyone?

also - if adam and eve were not literal, does it make any difference? for one thing we know humanity has fallen and we live with that consequence everyday. the story of adam tells us how sin was introduced into the world. could this have happened in another way besides adam and eve eating the forbidden fruit? is this story representing an event that we couldn't understand?

---

quote:

---

Just being honest, I'm finding it hard to believe the literal nature of Adam and Eve (and I think OTHERS do to who ain't talkin') because of the 1) exegetical considerations and 2) the pretty undisputable evidence about the evolution of our planet.

---

I did NOT talk about biological evolution, now did I? I was specifically talking about the VERY EVIDENT "billions and billions" of years it appears that it took our earth to form. How all this biological evolution talk got in here is beyond me. I didn't START it. So...



2. As far as Adam and Eve, I thought that I had answered the questions that were placed:

quote:

---

jesus and paul both refer to adam by name in the new testament, does that give any credit to the literal side? also, what, if any, are the implications if adam and eve were not literal?

---

and...

quote:

---

why and how do you think jesus (or paul) could have gotten it wrong?

---

These questions I did feel I answered.


3. The points keep being made that sin is self-evident, the fall took place, and that truth could be conveyed even IF the historicity of the Adamic couple isn't there. However, only Writerdad seems to be really looking at the possible implications of saying that Jesus and Paul REALLY were possibly INCORRECT about belief in the Adamic couple's historicity. Regardless to what, this HAS to be seen to have some far reaching ramifications. And this needs to be recognized. The bottom line is that Paul and Jesus made mention to the Gen 2-3 creation account, not the others. And it's on the basis of THAT account that they may have believed the Adamic couple to be literal. And need we even mention the genealogies in the Gospels...AND the one in 1 Chronicles.


Thanks,


Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/26/2002 1:04:33 PM

quote:

---

Glad you mentioned those geneologies. The first thing to notice about them is that they are not the same. This supports my suggestion that perhaps they are there to answer different kinds of questions than we tend to ask of them.

---

They ARE all the same in the fact that they all have Adam first, meaning as progenitor. Big consideration...and the one I was making.


*********************************

Modes:

quote:

---

BTW: I did touch on the issue with Jesus and the correctness of his knowledge. Remember the mustard seed? That counts right?

---

It definitely counted, but it seems, to me, that you immediately DIScounted it when you seem to say that the situation about Jesus being wrong about seeds was on the same level as Jesus being wrong about the historicity of Adamic couple. There are VERY different considerations going on there because theological assertions are being DIRECTLY MADE from their existence, and not analogically. I'm speaking of course about Paul. Paul REALLY BELIEVED that sin CAME from the Adamic couple and THAT'S WHY it's here. (The idea of original sin from a good source, if you ask me.) Once you say that the Adamic couple may have not be actual, we've got some explaining to do. Saying that a truth is still being conveyed is ok. But the fact remains that NOW serious doubt remains about other things. Millard Erickson really talks about this well in his ideas on inerrancy. Though I may disagree with him, I am very aware of the poignancy of his talking about epistemological importance. Remember, it's reasons like this that people like Paul Jewett will just go ahead and say that Paul is just flat out WRONG in some cases, theologically as well as historically. The doctrine of inerrancy really does perform a type of "protective shield" for biblical authority. It's a big deal.



*********************************

Modes:

quote:

---

The thing is, people who argue for hard core inerrancy assume that they are correct and then seek to "demonstrate" this to others. In other words, they are arguing from assumption, not strictly evidence. In doing this, they inadvertantly attempt to make the Bible stand up to questions and criticisms that it was never intended to address. In effect, they end up telling lies about the Bible in an attempt to "save face" for God. As though God needs us to do this.

---

and...

quote:

---

Where does the problem lie? In our OWN preconceived notions of what it means for God to God enough for us. We want provable perfection that we can flaunt so that the world will know that when we say, "I told you so" we were right. God doesn't give us these kinds of assurances.

---

I understand what you're saying, pard. For real. But I do see what others would say about this. The question of WHY we believe the Bible is very important. Doc, I believe, grounds his in, I feel, the most adequate place: believing the Jesus is the Son of God. He then takes Jesus being Lord AND Jesus's view of Scripture to what he feels is the logical conclusion about how WE are to view Scripture. And how we are to value the teachings of Jesus. (Think about one of the main reasons why Doc believes in the reality of demons!) However, THIS becomes problematic too. ESPECIALLY when you admit that the Incarnated Son of God really COULD HAVE been wrong on historical and POSSIBLY theological matters. Doc and I talked about this before...and yes, the implications are huge.

This is why many evangelicals want to place this stuff on the more solid ground possible: the level of assumption. The Bible is true because God, who is true, inspired it. Now, Modes, you and I both know that the appeal to epistemological certainty with respect to the Bible is a more pragmatic argument than anything else. Simply an erected fence to stop the ambiguity. But they generally feel that that's the ONLY way to secure solid belief in the Bible. From Millard Erickson's "Christian Theology" (2nd ed) Pages 254-255):

quote:

---

The epistemological question is simply, How do we know? Some assertions in the Bible are at least potentially independently verified or falsified. That is to say, the references to historical and scientific matters can, within the limitations of the historical and scientific methods and of the data available, be found to be true or false. Certain other matters, such as doctrinal statements about the nature of God and the atonement, transcend the realm of our sensory experience. We cannot test their truth or validity empirically. Now if the Bible should prove to be in error in those realms where its claims can be checked, on what possible basis would we logically continue to hold to its dependability in areas where we cannot verify what it says?

Let us put it another way. Our basis for holding to the truth of any theological proposition is that the Bible teaches it. If, however, we should conclude that certain propositions (historical or scientific) taught by the Bible are not true, the implications are far-reaching. We cannot then continue to hold to other propositions simply on the grounds that the Bible teaches them. It is not that these other statements have been proven false, but that we cannot be certain they are true. We either must profess agnosticism regarding them or find some other basis for holding them. Since the principle has been abrogated that whatever the Bible teaches is necessarily true, the mere fact that the Bible teaches these other propositions is an insufficient basis in itself for holding them. One may continue to hold these other propositions, of course, but not because of the authority of the Bible.

---

What he's saying here makes sense. Would you keep an algebra book in which YOU, being a fledgling algebra student, somehow found significant errors in the first 2 chapters, if that's all you basically had? Probably not. Same thing's being said here. And let's apply it to Doc's epistemological formula. Once you say that JESUS HIMSELF could have been historically wrong on something like human origins, then you cannot just say that you can believe something is actual JUST BECAUSE JESUS SAID IT or BELIEVED IT. This is major! How do we not know that Jesus's belief in hell and Satan was just based on the sizable effect of Zoroastrianism on Judaism? How do we not know that Jesus' belief in sicknesses being demons was merely the COMMON BELIEF at the time that he himself believed? None of this can be ruled out out of hand. Even if we grant that Jesus did miracles, this does not directly translate to veracity about his self-understanding or theological statements in general. See some of the implications?

See, IMO, the issue is that Doc had been using the "Son of God" argument but NOT fully factoring in the ramifications of Jesus being FULLY HUMAN. And the possbility of Jesus being wrong about historical matters like the Adamic couple is quite important. But what if you are more Kierkegaardian in your theologizing? Would all this matter that much to you? Hmmm..






*********************************

Modes:

quote:

---

Here's the deal for me: If I want to know about teeth, I ask a dentist. If I want to know about boats, I'd ask sailors and ship builders and the like. If I want to know about GOD, who should I ask? Well, rumor has it, God showed up to say something to this effect. So I'd check that out. Rumor also has it that God emptied Godself in doing this and so I might need to bracket some of my expectations, like the incarnate God being omnipresent for instance. That would be really hard to pull off and still be able to walk around incognito, so to speak. Why wouldn't I, given that God has been said to do this, expect that God might have taken on all the limitations that are present for us as humans. That's the claim isn't it? Well, then there really is no logical problem with Jesus demonstrating some of those limitations, now is there? Where does the problem lie? In our OWN preconceived notions of what it means for God to God enough for us. We want provable perfection that we can flaunt so that the world will know that when we say, "I told you so" we were right. God doesn't give us these kinds of assurances. Sorry. When I think of Paul, I might have questions of praxis in mind for missions and church building and planting. I certainly will not be asking him about crop circles, for instance. Or evolution for that matter. It's just not in the cards.

---

Let's also remember how Kierkegaardian you are in your thinking. (I DO think that is important to remember) SK would probably balk at all this talk about inerrancy and epistemological certainty, right? And I don't know that much about SK, but wouldn't it be true to say that his belief in the veracity of Scripture was NEVER REALLY IN QUESTION?? From what I see, his thinking presupposed that the Christian God was true, and therefore, Christ and Scripture was fully true. Are these the same assumptions that you and I live with in our world? I think this definitely has to be a consideration.

Moreover, YOU and I, Modes, place a LOT OF VALUE on our interpreted experience with the speaking, risen Christ/Incarnated God (as per your "What's your Story" post alludes) And THAT firmly grounds us where we are. The ENCOUNTER. But we also live in a far different world from SK did. We live in a much more PLURALISTIC world where religious experiences and "miracles" come from all different types of contexts. So, it would seem that our faith "leap" is even more precarious because of this. I may be wrong but, I don't think that we believe the Bible JUST BECAUSE it's the Bible. We believe the Bible because it TESTIFIES to the Risen Christ that we feel that we have encountered. And this places us in am very interesting position in discussions of inspiration, inerrancy, and the like. Plus, I think, we both realize the TENTATIVE and CONTEXTUAL nature of our belief. I know that MY experience wasn't self-evidently leading to belief in Christ. There was a context there that facilitated that.

Because of all this, I am willing to say that I place radical faith in the veracity of the Risen Christ, despite all the immanent ambiguity. This would be my reply to Erickson's "How do you know" question:

I don't "know", but I BELIEVE. And if you think about it, that's all I can do. I have reasons to believe in the Risen Christ/Incarnated God and I EXTEND that belief to the book that testifies about Him. This means that I give the book authority as the Word of God based on Jesus' testimony about the same. Now, I differ from Doctor Boyd, in that I would say that the belief in the full HUMANITY of Jesus (that is dogma) conditions this idea even further. Jesus, being fully incarnated, MAY HAVE had contemporary views of the time that MAY NOT be actual. Those this may have many ramifications, I COMMIT MYSELF to the faith-leap that...

--Christ is the "human face" of the Father who presumably lived in the Spirit of God.
--Christ is the supreme act of reconciliation between God and man.
--living IN Christ is to live IN the reconciliation.

...because I believe this to be authentic to the overarching message of creation, redemption, and final consummation seen in Scripture.

I don't know ANY of this to be definitively true, but this is my FAITH and HOPE.


Now, I ask you. What MORE can be said than that, at least from my perspective? I choose to keep the possibly faulty algebra book because I place FAITH and TRUST in the TEACHER that gave me the book! Now will some other people like this? Nope. Too uncertain. Too open for syncretism. Too "up in the air" Oh, well...

Hmmm...I'm rambling now. Out.



Holla,


Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/26/2002 3:02:17 PM

quote:

---

i was thinking more along the lines of some cosmic event happening in the primordial past that was given to us in terms that we could understand. anyone?

also - if adam and eve were not literal, does it make any difference? for one thing we know humanity has fallen and we live with that consequence everyday. the story of adam tells us how sin was introduced into the world. could this have happened in another way besides adam and eve eating the forbidden fruit? is this story representing an event that we couldn't understand?

---

I could be wrong but I think what you're asking is this:

Is it possible that the Adam/Eve story is basically a divine condescension of language that explains the emergence of sin and fallenness of humanity, the actual event of which that would be largely incomprehensible without it?

To me, this is the same thing as asking can TRUTH be conveyed by a non-literal material. Yep, it's possible. But then we'd have to ask ourselves some questions that could lead to some interesting ideas. What event that affected HUMAN BEINGS supposedly caused BY human beings would, in itself, be so essential incomprehensible? The idea of human beings not following instructions and getting ramifications from that is pretty understandable. What ineffable event that that be revealing? To be that problematic, it would seem to have to be in the realm of the heavenlies COMPLETELY...but that's not what seems to be said. Nother question. Why would it be necessary to create a non-literal Creation story about humans making mistakes in a paradise? One possible answer would be to EXPLAIN the fallen, messed up world and evil that the authors saw THEN. In other words, it's not as much a divine revealing of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED HISTORICALLY, as much as it may be an all-too-human attempt to EXPLAIN how the pitible state self-reflective humans found themselves in came to be...driven by a vague divine unction that things just aren't as they were MEANT to be. Is this to say that they may not be based on some actual occurances? Nope. What I am saying, as a whole, is that it is very possible that there was no Adamic couple, and even though we can say truth was conveyed through the story, the potential non-existence of said couple may have sizable implications on how we view things.

I hope this answers something, June.

Holla,


PS: Just wondering. On the Biblical creation accounts, isn't the only one that really deals with the emergence of HUMAN sin and evil basically Gen 2-3? I'm really asking.

Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/26/2002 7:51:43 PM

quote:

---

Mephi2K - PS: Just wondering. On the Biblical creation accounts, isn't the only one that really deals with the emergence of HUMAN sin and evil basically Gen 2-3? I'm really asking.

---

HERE IS ANOTHER ACCOUNTING.

quote:

---

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
(1:5 Or darkness, and the darkness has not overcome)

John 3:
18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

---

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 09/27/2002 12:13:12 AM

quote:

---

Is it possible that the Adam/Eve story is basically a divine condescension of language that explains the emergence of sin and fallenness of humanity, the actual event of which that would be largely incomprehensible without it?

---

quote:

---

satan's fall may have introduced sin into the world and the adam and eve story is a way to understand it? i don't know - i'm really searching here. anybody have anything?

---

I'll give you TWO tracks, and you have to try out BOTH, June.

The first is the Augustinian, juridical track, where guilt is imputed. Its abstract, perhaps. Guilt is inherited through sex.

The second is that mortality is inherited by genetics. The result of sin was death, and by death came more sin. We inherit the curse of our parent's sin, which is mortality. But we all sin our own sins.

Which track are you going to pursue first?

quote:

---

lets say for a second adam and eve were real. (asking the right question and getting to the core of the issue is a serious challenge!) we know the effects of original sin - but how exactly was adam's sin passed on to the next generation?

---

Probably a good way to deal with this is to talk about some options...along with Al's 2nd idea. In short, one could say 1) human mortality was genetically passed on, but sin is each person is responsible for their own sins. and...

we can say, with Pelagius' more healthy implications, that the ENVIRONMENT of Creation being marred by sin's emergence made the probability and propensity for people sinning much higher. [Do some of you old heads remember WAAAAAY back when we had that discussion on Pelagius...back when RevivalTheology was here? :)]


************************************

June:

quote:

---

if adam and eve weren't real, does the story (like you mentioned) attempt to tell a completely HEAVENLY event? satan's fall may have introduced sin into the world and the adam and eve story is a way to understand it?

---

Hmmm...so you're wondering if the Adamic couple story may be a way of explaining Satan's fall from grace in heaven...and the marring of Creation (including humanity) because of that? I really wouldn't think so. The closest thing to something like that is Doc's idea. He chooses to take the gap theory and say that sin really DID come into existence via Satan in the first half. But God "warred" against the forces of chaos and set up a renewed creation, where he had the Adamic couple as viceroys of God's reign. They screwed up and let the evil, sin, and chaos back out of the bag again, giving Satan dominion. Basically this view has the intuitions of saying that sin DID originally come from Satan, but it REEMERGED because of the Adamic couple's faux pas. But this is distinct from saying that the Adam/Eve story is REPRESENTATIVE of Satan's rebellion.

It really wouldn't be THAT hard to talk about it, I don't think. Doc doesn't make it seem hard. Plus, when Jesus said he saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven, that seemed pretty concrete enough. Why use a story about HUMAN AVARICE to talk about that? See what I'm saying?


Hope this helps.

Peace,

quote:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by asking if the story of adam and eve "represent an event that we couldn't understand." Personally, I would not deny the possibility that adam and eve were historical figures. But neither would I insist that the truth about the goodness of creation, or the truth about how sin entered the world (or Paul's analogy about Christ as the 2nd Adam) hangs on their historicity.

---